Lol.  Apparently you did not know that words can have more than one meaning. XD You learn something new everyday don't you?

Please learn about the basic way that language functions before replying.  Also, when you gain the ability to read more than one sentence in a sitting.

Repeat offices will get you a harsher sentence. And that article by Marc Mauer also says that blacks commit proportionately more crimes. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but it's not systematic.

As I understand from reading other articles, what PewDiePie actually did was using a platform called "Fiverr" to see just how embarrassing/disgusting things people are willing to do for a few pieces of silver nowadays. Among these things was holding up signs that read "Death to all jews" and "Hitler did nothing wrong" in public.

Now one can clearly disagree on whether this is funny or not - but how is this very different from what Sasha Baron Cohen has been doing in his roles as "Brüno" or "Borat"? In these movies (usually considered to be very funny), Cohen is often actively "fishing for anti-semitism", trying to make his dialog partners say disgusting things like demanding a "train to Auschwitz".

I don't see how this is very different. Because Cohen is a jew himself? I don't think so.

Higher incarceration rates of one group over another is not clear cut direct evidence of of systemic racism. That is the correlation = causation fallacy. It does matter if it is a repeat offense. The person committing the repeat offense is...repeating the offense. That is their fault.

To say we shouldn't ask the question would be intellectually dishonest, but there is a possibility there isn't nefarious scheming going on behind the scenes to incarcerate black men at higher rates.

I ponder from time to time that if government is allegedly responsible for so much evil against different groups then why is the answer by so many to institute more government?

Why is Trump's immigration ban racist and Obama's aren't? The biggest difference between the two bans was that Trump banned all citizens from the seven countries (their threat and labeling was given or existed through the Obama administration) and Obama banned people that had visited those same seven countries. So if visiting a country on the list is a potential red flag, then we have to admit that there is an element in the country that is perceived as organizing violence against the U.S. and that they can influence others to do the same. It would be reasonable to be cautious about those that live there and are exposed directly to that influence at a much higher rate than the two Iraqi refugees from Bowling Green, KY. I also agreed with Obama's immigration bans.

He may be an insensitive, mouthy person, but he isn't banning people because they are Arab. He is banning people from regions that have the highest rates of terrorist activity while they re-evaluate intelligence and vetting procedures for 90 days. BIG difference.

The Mexican rapist comment is a huge, intellectually dishonest spin just like the "Trump makes fun of disabled guy" BS. He was alluding to the fact that some of the illegal immigrants are committing crimes such as rape, murder etc. once they arrive in the U.S. That point is fact. He didn't say that they are wholly responsible for crime in America. He He also acknowledged good people are coming across the border and he is right on both counts.

Of course they're going to commit more crimes when the laws are made to be disadvantageous to poorer people. You also seen to be mistaking me for someone else: I don't like Obama either and I'm an anarchist, so I am not promoting bigger government. Also, Tump's intention was definitely to spin them as bad people. He says that they're rapists, as a fact, but then says that he assumes that some are good people, hinting at the possibility that he could be mistaken and that maybe there aren't any.

I always hate that statement, that crimes are disadvantageous to poorer people.

Don't commit a freaking crime.

Let's take getting a parkign ticket. Very innocent crime. But you get a $15 ticket. It says on there you have 1 week to pay for it, or it costs $10 more, and then $10 more each 2 days after. (something rediculous like that. Trust me, they are rediculous. They go up exponentially in price super fast)

Now if your poor, maybe the $15 is a tough squeeze to handle right away. If you can't afford $15 right now, wow you are gonna be F*cked real soon, cause in like a month it will be like $100 or more. A weathly person can obviously handle paying the $15, or if they forget the marked up $100 or more price.

But in the end, just don't get a parking ticket. Or speeding ticket, or whatever CRIME you are committing. Say you get a DUI and your car gets impounded. That becomes like a $100 a night or something rediculous. Yes its rediculous. But again a crime, that is preventable.

So pray tell me how do we punish people for breaking the law? Hefty fines ar emeant to be a detterant. If speeding only gave one a $5 ticket, do you really thing anyone woudl care? No, everyone woudl be speeding.

And don't bring in that stupid argument of make fines proportional to income. That just brings about discrimination. You woluld have cop cars sitting there in their speed traps ignoring beaters and just pulling over mercedes or something. They would know that pulling over a crap car would get them like $100, versus a benz woudl give thema  $5000 ticket. And the rich woudl just then drive beaters, or have someone drive them.

Of course they're going to commit more crimes when the laws are made to be disadvantageous to poorer people. You also seen to be mistaking me for someone else: I don't like Obama either and I'm an anarchist, so I am not promoting bigger government. Also, Tump's intention was definitely to spin them as bad people. He says that they're rapists, as a fact, but then says that he assumes that some are good people, hinting at the possibility that he could be mistaken and that maybe there aren't any.

You need to prove that there is intent behind the making of those laws. If you're arguing that the laws are made to be disadvantageous to poorer people because more poor people commit more crimes, then this is ad hoc ergo propter hoc. You even stated in your latest comment that rich people are at an advantage because they don't have to worry about their next paycheck. Nothing about that reasoning is related to law, which makes your earlier assertion out of place.

They whiten their names so they have a higher chance of being called back, which th studies show is a measure that does increase their rate. If that isn't proof of systemic racism, I don't know what is. Also, how do Asians have a higher callback rate than whites? The average is 11.5 for Asians and 10% for blacks, while the average in total is 16.7%, which means that whites have to be higher.